What kind or how much sin did Christ atone for His people?

The question relates to how many sins did Christ die on behalf of the elect? Was his sacrifice only geared towards certain amount of sins or types of sins like accidentals vs habituals? Sproul would have us believe that to sin habitually means we are not really Christians.

Tobias Crisp says, "And we may do some good to let you see what advantage there is in Christ for you; for thereby you may be induced not to establish your own righteousness against him, and his. We shall sin every day; in many things we sin all; but the business we are to do, is this, to let you know, that though there be sins committed, yet there is no peace broken; because the breach of peace is satisfied in Christ; there is a reparation of the damage before the ain itself be commitres: Christ had in his eye, and so had the Father too, all the damages that should fall out to the end of the world, by his own people; and he did not pay a price for some that were present only, but he paid the damages of all that shouls come after, from the time of his suffering, to the end of the world. . . ." Christ Alone Exalted, pg. 164 - 165

Sproul against the Gospel

So I have read the revised and expanded edition of Sproul's The Holiness of God. On pg. 204 Sproul tells us to focus on the fruit of the holy spirit. Sproul basically is telling us to look inward to ourselves for holiness. The problem is that all of this is abstract and conjured. Ultimately speaking if our holiness and sanctification is dependent on what the Spirit does in us then it is no longer Christ alone but our salvation then hinges on what we do.

Not by works of any kind no matter how perfect

"Let me tell you, that the Lord hath so established Christ, for the rest and life of men, that if they could yield angelic obedience, be perfect throughout in obedience to the whole law of God, and not fail in one point of it; if, I say, from such perfection of obedience they would gather up their own comfort, or conclude their own salvation; these persons should be damned, as well as those that sin ever so much: for God hath established Christ, and only his righteousness, to be the salvation of man; I say, only the righteousness of Christ; that if a man were so perfect, and in respect of that perfection, would leave the righteousness of Christ, and lean to the perfection of his own, for his peace, and salvation; that man would miscarry, and be damned." -Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted, pg. 157


Martin Luther says in the Large Catechism found in the Book of Concords, "Therefore the Ten Commandments do not by themselves make us Christians, for God's wrath and displeasure still remain on us because we cannot fulfill his demands. But the Creed brings pure grace and makes us upright and pleasing to God." (Pg. 420)

Nothing in the creature swayed God to choose one and reject the other

"The apostle, in the former chapter, more plainly and fully lays down the absolute freeness of the grace of God alone to peace, life, and salvation, than any where else; clearly shewing, that merely and only for his own good pleasure-sake, he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy; especially in that instance of Jacob and Esau, he tells us plainly, that God hath no regard in the world unto good and evil, that might be done by either of them; but, before ever they could do any such thing, it is expressly written of them, 'Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated.'
And the reason, why God takes nothing into his consideration, either good or evil done by the creature as a motive to his love, the apostle gives there, is this, 'That the purpose of God might stand, according to election; not of works, but of grace,' that is, that all the world may see that the first thoughts of God, in his election, had no eye in the world unto any thing that the creature might do, which should have any prevalency with him, to sway him this way, or that way; it was not consideration of Esau, as one that would be resolute and peremptory in a way of sinfulness, that was a motive with God to reject him; nor was it consideration of any propensity in the spirit of Jacob to yield unto calling, or of any inclination in Jacob to glorify him being called...." -Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted, pg. 153

The humanitarian is the one who is often for dominance and control

"The problem is not only a lust for power; ironically, benevolence and humanitarianism drive many to seek power over others. They believe for humanitarian reasons that the strong and wise have an obligation to subject the weak and ignorant to the whims of government control." -Ron Paul, End The Fed, pg. 117

Our Righteousness can do nothing but procure for us the Wrath of God

"All our righteousness will prevail nothing at all with God, nor move him a jot, except it be to pull down wrath: there is not one act of righteousness that a person doth, but when that is finished, there is more transgression belonging to him, than before he had performed it: and there no composition, there is no buying out of evil by good doings; the doing of good doth not make a recompense for what sin doth; we pay but our debts in doing good; so that as is a new righteousness performed, there is still a new reckoning added to former; by acting of righteousness, you make up a greater number of sins than before; so that it is only Christ from whom we must have the expectation of success, in whatsoever thing desire." Tobias Crisp, Christ alone exalted, pg. 148

God is one and three in different senses

Van Til has said in his writings that Scripture is made up of paradoxes. One instance where he affirms this diabolical teaching is founs in his doctrine of what he would say is the Trinitarian view. Van Til says that God is one and three in the same sense. God is, for Van Til, one person and three persons at the same time. How he is able to say such things and with a straight face confounds me. However, the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity doesnt purport such nonsense. God is one and three in two different senses. God is one in essence but three in Persons. These things are not paradoxical. God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent in essence but three in persons. What God is the three persons is. The three are co-eternal but not confused or confounded.

George Berkeley to be sure was an empiricist. If we are only limited to what our eyes are capable of seeing then we would not truly be able to understand or know anything at all. We couldn't make any judgment as to the truth of one religion or philosophy from another. How do we know truth? We know it based on Scripture alone anything else simply reduces itself to skepticism. The Bible alone is the word of God.

With our ideas we are completely passive

"I do not understand how our ideas, which are things altogether passive and inert, can be the essence, or any part (or like any part) of the essence or substance of God, who is an impassive, indivisible, pure, active being." (Pg. 45) "And, hath it not been made evident that no such sunstance can possibly exist? And, though it should be allowed to exist, yet how can that which is inactive be a cause; or that which is unthinking be a Cause of thought?" (Pg. 47) - Philonous in the Three Dialogues, George Berkeley

God is simple or one in essence

"Therefore, let such as love sobriety, and will be contented with the measure of faith, briefly attend to what is useful to be known, which is, that, when we profess to believe in one God, the word God denotes a single and simple essence, in which we comprehend three Persons, or hypostases; and that, therefore, whenever the word God is used indefinitely, the Son and Spirit are intended as much as the Father; but when the Son is associated with the Father, that introduces the reciprocal relation of one to the other; and thus we distinguish between the Persons." - John Calvin, The Institutes, 1. 8. 20. Pg. 136

"The nature of God is his most lively and most perfect essence. The perfection of the nature of God is his absolute constitution by the which he is wholly complete within himself. (Exodus 3:14) . . . . (Acts 17:24,25) . . . . The perfection of his nature is either simpleness, or the infiniteness thereof. The simpleness of his nature is that by which he is void of all logical relation. He hath not in him subject or adjunct. (John 5:26) . . . . Conferred with John 14:6 . . . . (1 John 1:7) . . . . Conferred with 1 John 1:5 . . . . Hence it is manifest that to have life and to be life, to be in light and to be light, in God are all one. Neither is God subject to generality or speciality, whole or parts, matter or that which is made of matter, for so there should be in God divera things, and one more perfect than another. Therefore, whatsoever is in God is his essence, and all that he is, he is by essence. The saying of Augustine in his sixth book and fourth chapter of The Trinity, is fit to prove this, 'In God (saith he) to be, and to be just and mighty are all one: but in the mind of man it is not all one to be, and to be mighty or just: for the mind may be destitute of these virtues, and yet a mind.' Hence it is manifest that the nature of God is immutable and spiritual." - William Perkins, The Golden Chain, pg. 2

God is one and so His knowledge is eternal

"The knowledge of God proves him without successive duration. God knows all things, past, present, and to come, that is, which are so to us; not that they are so to him; these he knows at once, and all together, not one thing after another, as they successively come into being; all things are open and manifest to him at once and together, not only what are past and present, but he calls things that are not yet, as though they were; he sees and knows all in one view, in his all-comprehending mind: and as his knowledge is not successive, so not his duration." - John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 49

If there was a successive  moments in God, then He would not be immutable if he thought like us.

"Is not time measured by the succession of ideas in our minds?" says Philonous, in George Berkeley's Three Dialogues, Pg. 23

One must understand what is being represented in the Sacrament

"I am happy the mass now is held among the Germans in German. But to make a necessity of this, as if it had to be so, is again too much. This spirit cannot do anything else than continually create laws, necessity, problems of conscience and sin. To be sure, I have read in 1 Cor. 14 [:27-28] that he who speaks with tongues is to be  silent in the congregation when no one understands anything of what he says. One tends however to skip over the other words: 'Unless there is someone to interpret.' That is, St. Paul permits speaking with tongues, 'if at the same time it is interpreted,' so that one understands it. Therefore he also commands that they are not to prevent those who speak with tongues, etc. Now we administer the sacrament to no one unless he understands the words in the sacrament, as one well knows. So in this matter we do not act contrary to St. Paul, since we satisfy his intention. If we do not satisfy this spirit, who only looks at external works and has no regard for either conscience or intentions, it is of no importance. We attach no importance to his new articles of faith.

. . .

For whoever goes to the sacrament understanding those words in German or having them clearly in his heart: 'Take, eat; this is my body,' etc. [Matt. 26:26], which he has learned and borne in mind from a foregoing sermon, and thereupon and therewith receives the sacrament, he receives it rightly and does not merely hear speaking with tongues, but something which has real meaning. On the other hand he who does not comprehend or understand these words in his heart, nor thereupon receives the sacrament, such a one would not be helped if a thousand preachers stood around his ears and shouted themselves into a frenzy with such words. However for the mad spirit everything depends on external works and appearance, which out of his own head he would continually set up as necessary and as an article of faith, without God's commandment." -Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets, Pg. 219-220

Now Gordon Clark also says something similar when his writings. In What is the Christian Life? He says,

"It is therefore requisite to make a few more remarks on the efficacy of sacraments. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ceremonies commanded by Christ. Therefore the church must administer them until Christ returns. They are signs: Baptism signifies purification, and the Supper pictures Christ's death. The sacraments are also seals which confirm our faith, and as such are means of grace. A seal, in earlier legal practice, showed that a document was genuine. If seals are no longer so widely used, at least they were familiar necessities in Biblical times (compare 1 Kings 21:8, Nehemiah 9:38, Isaiah 8:16, Jeremiah 32:10, Daniel 12:4). In the case of Abraham and his descendants, circumcision was the seal God placed on his promises. One might argue that God and God's promises do not need seals: nevertheless God used seals to strengthen our assurance.
However, if God has made no promises, if the document is blank, if there is nothing to seal, the seal obviously is useless. Hence with the seal there must also be the Scripture whose truth is thereby authenticated. Sacraments are not to be celebrated apart from the Word.
A magical formula operates of itself; it needs nothing further. Hence Romish worship most frequently has its sacraments without the Word, whereas Calvinism always stresses the sermon - the preaching of the Word. Without the Word the sacrament seals nothing. For a sacrament to be effective, it must be understood; and the more extensive the understanding the greater the effect. Suppose Nebuchadnezzar had sent a sealed document to the Chinese. Unless the Chinese had a translator, the document would mean nothing to them. This is why the Protestants from the first insisted on translating the Bible into the common languages, while the Roman church, until only a few years ago, opposed translations for the people. Incidentally, this is also why Paul insists that the miraculous gift of speaking in foreign languages, during the apostolic age, should not be used in public unless translation were given. Thus 'There is never any sacrament,' says Calvin, 'without an antecedent promise of God, to which it is subjoined as an appendix. . . . A sacrament consists of the  Word and the outward sign. For we ought to understand the word, not of a murmur uttered without any meaning or faith, a mere whisper like a magical incantation . . . but of the gospel preached. . .'" (Institutes IV xiv 3, 4). - Gordon H. Clark, What is the Christian Life?, Pg. 76

"As we have said above, the preaching of the Word is useless if it is not preached in an intelligible manner, and, likewise, if also what is expounded and declared to us, i.e. Jesus Christ with all His benefits, is not received by faith in the hearts of those who hear it. It must be understood that it is the same with Sacraments. For, if in receiving the Sacraments we do not bring faith, the sole means of receiving what is preached to us and represented by them, they are far from serving to our salvation. On the contrary, in the measure in which we misapprehend them or, rather, misapprehend Christ in them, they seal our damnation (1 Cor 10:5; 11:27-29; 1 Pet 3:21; Acts 15:8,9). However, in the same way as the Gospel does not cease to be, in its nature, the word of life and salvation, although unbelievers turn it into an odour of death and damnation, thus the Sacraments do not cease to be true Sacraments although they may be administered or received by unworthy persons, even reprobates. For the malice of men cannot change the nature of the ordinance of God." -Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith, pg. 48

James 2 teaches us the importance of right doctrine

The point of James 2 is quite simple. No it has nothing to do with works righteousness or salvation hinging on works as the lordship salvation guy says. The point of the chapter is to say that Faith results in action. Right doctrine results in action. Even the devils believe that God is one and they shudder. Faith without works is dead. If Christ has really torn down the dividing wall of hostility and that there is now no distinction between Jew or Gentile, slave or free, ri...ch or poor then how might that result how we ought to live towards our brethren in Christ? We do not judge according to the law but we are now free from the cursed law. This is not a passage to endorse self righteousness. Macarthur is wrong and so are the Lordshipers who try to distinguish between works done by the power of the flesh or works done by grace. Simply put, this passage removes all kinds of boasting in ones works whether the works done are of flesh or of grace; for the passage is about right doctrine or more particularly right gospel doctrine and not about works.

Importance of Education

I'm reading Plato's Republic. Plato to be sure was a heathen philosopher. However, he speaks of education and upbringing as things to be protected and guarded against corruption in book 4. Plato speaks of music, poetry, and physical training that easily corrupts these two things.
Today, we have even more things that corrupt the minds of men and women every where. You might be able to think of some things but I know that today music, movies, medicine, the foods we eat, the drinks we drink are all things that are used by the system to distort the minds of the masses. Even the News channels all give out bias ideas.
The Christian, however, depends not on these things for truth for living but lives by every word from God alone. So what does this mean? It means that if one is married, or is unmarried, how we are to live is not by experience. But we are to live according to the word of God. The Bible alone is the word of God and tells us how we are to live not the media.
If it is one thing that is honorable about Martin Luther, other than parts, if not all of his theology,  then it's the fact that he stressed education: we need to learn the languages, we need to teach our children, and we need to keep the libraries and books. After all uneducated men and women will allow anything to happen to them even to the point that they let other people tell them what truth is or is not.
For many Christians, or those who profess to be so, knowledge is well despised. Of course this is nothing new people have despised knowledge since the beginning of the first sin. However, the Bible encourages understanding and knowledge of the truth. Philippians 2:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, 5:1-3; Colossians 1:9; Ephesians 1:9, 17-18, 4:23-24. In fact this seems to be the purpose of the Exodus that the Egyptians might know God (and also the Jewish people no doubt) - Exodus 14:4, Deuteronomy 4:35-36. Of course God's people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. 1 Thessalonians 4 seems to make the effect of our sanctification in knowledge.

The Bible also says,

25At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

 - Matthew 11

"Light" here is taken to mean knowledge and not some sort of weight. Christ is the radiance and glory of God and has revealed his truth to man. He is therefore said to be the light of the world. He is not dark but light and in him does the fullness of deity dwell. Of course in context 28 comes after 27.

Gordon H. Clark says, "But now we have fallen into an 'ocean of arguments' no less deep and wide than Plato's Parmenides. Suppose the child, the human being, is an evolutionary product, simply a more complicated animal, without a soul, especially without an immortal soul. The late Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, said, 'I can see no reason for attributing to man a significant difference in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or to a grain of sand. . . . I wonder if cosmically an idea is any more important than the bowels.' Bertrand Russell's famous passage, quoted in chapter three, builds life and therefore education 'only on the firm foundation and unyielding despair.' The end of man is a doom, pitiless and dark. All the labor of the ages is destined to extinction and must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins. Suppose on the other hand that God created man in His own image and breathed into him the breath of life, with the result that those redeemed by Christ shall glorify God and enjoy him forever.
Teachers teach pupils. But whereas a teacher with the first view of what a pupil is teaches despair along with arithmetic or social consciousness; the teacher with the second view teaches hope.
In these two views, naturalism and theism, are interwined all the strands of philosophy. Even the question whether the government should control education for its own ends and ban God from the schools, or whether the church, home, or private corporations should do the educating, depends on what man is. Once admit that the teacher teaches pupils, it is impossible to rule out any part of philosophy as irrelevant.
Among the considerations that have come under review, some mention has been made of the effect of government on education. Mention should also be made of the effect, or alleged effect, of education on government. Americans often speak of public education as if it were the main support of democracy. Without an educated populace all sorts of evils would proliferate, and the professional educators claim that unless legislatures appropriate almost unlimited amounts of tax money for the schools, the nation will shortly collapse. The fact of the matter is that with hundreds of billions already appropriated for public education, all sorts of evils have proliferated and the nation is already collapsing. A Justice of the United States Supreme Court was forced to resign in the 1960's because of suspicious financial arrangements. The 1970's and 1980's have seen a series of national scandals in all three branches of the government. No wonder America raises its crime rate faster than it inflates its money." -Gordon H. Clark, A Christian Philosophy of Education, Pg. 8-9

Also Theodore Beza says,

"The Kingdom of God is not a Kingdom of ignorance, but of faith and, consequently, of knowledge; for it is beyond the ability of anyone to believe that which he is ignorant of." - Theodore Beza, Preface of Theodore Beza in The Christian Faith, pg. iv